Rebel Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 Who actually put us in Administration? Lowe, Barclays? Who? Without the 15 point deduction it brought the players might actually have pulled spomething out of the hat and survived - as it was their very fragiel morale couldn't take it and they rolled over and died! If we weren't in administration right now we be able to sell season tickets to raise some money to pay wages - and possibly hold a concert or two at St Mary's to raise more cash this summer. We'd also have been able to sell players like Rasiak, Dyer, Saga, Surman, Lallana, Schneiderlin and McGoldrick in the summer transfer window to lower our wage bill and rasie some cash to pay-off some off the debt! Renegogiating the mortgage on St Mary's was also an obvious next step to reduce our debts. It all seems so pointless for going £150K over an overdraft limit. It really has been a case of putting the cart before the horse! It's a simple question really! Would SFC have reduced its wage bill, repaid a chunk off the debt through selling players and holding concerts - and been in a more stable financial situation come the end of the summer? Simple answer is yes - so why put us in administration? Unfortunately it looks as though its game over for SFC because of a very short sighted decison by someone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 Barclays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 Minus 10 points surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 As I understand it it is a legal requirement of the PLC board to call in the administrators the moment the company can not honor its payment s to creditors (in this case triggered by Barclays bouncing cheques) as soon as this happened the board had no choice... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcadian Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 PLC put us in administration as understand it. And the administrator appointed was 'one to watch' from a certain ex chairman's other stock broking company. Its like playing Tetris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanh Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 As I understand it it is a legal requirement of the PLC board to call in the administrators the moment the company can not honor its payment s to creditors (in this case triggered by Barclays bouncing cheques) as soon as this happened the board had no choice... Pretty much. I've heard that Barclays are coming down heavily on all of their debtors and are calling in as much of their debt as possible. Their decision to bounce that cheque won't have taken into account the timing of the league points penalty deadline, the impact of the decision on the players morale, the time until the end of the season when we could sell players and see a reduction in our wage bill as high earners contracts expired. they will simply have looked at a spreadsheet and decided that the debt needed to be reduced. The frustrating thing is that we might have been able to make it through to the end of the season had more of our shareholders put their hands in their pockets and funded the club from April to June. Leon Crouch seems to be willing to do that now, it's a shame Lowe and Wilde wouldn't do the same when the cheque bounced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 According to Rupert it was Barclays - it's not like him to tell fibs is it? If that is true, it's great news, because they would be the ones that have to pay the administrator's bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 (edited) Barclays. Lowe edit: sorry, misread the wording of the question. Lowe "called in" the administrators as a result of Barclays "putting" us in the position of having to. Edited 28 May, 2009 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 Lowe 2 April 2009 Southampton Leisure Holdings plc ("SLH" or "the Company") Appointment of Administrators The Board announces today that it has appointed Mark Fry and David Hudson of Begbies Traynor (South) LLP as joint administrators to the Company. http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=2127610&source=RNS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 And the administrator appointed was 'one to watch' from a certain ex chairman's other stock broking company. Correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 Pretty much. I've heard that Barclays are coming down heavily on all of their debtors and are calling in as much of their debt as possible. Their decision to bounce that cheque won't have taken into account the timing of the league points penalty deadline, the impact of the decision on the players morale, the time until the end of the season when we could sell players and see a reduction in our wage bill as high earners contracts expired. they will simply have looked at a spreadsheet and decided that the debt needed to be reduced. The frustrating thing is that we might have been able to make it through to the end of the season had more of our shareholders put their hands in their pockets and funded the club from April to June. Leon Crouch seems to be willing to do that now, it's a shame Lowe and Wilde wouldn't do the same when the cheque bounced. But would it not have been wiser for Leon to dip in before, to avoid admin and at least maintain some sort of sharevalue and allow the club to then sell STs to keep us going? Seems to me, like some fans he put his own personal feelings against Lowe and Wilde ahead of the love the club at that time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcadian Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 But would it not have been wiser for Leon to dip in before' date=' to avoid admin and at least maintain some sort of sharevalue and allow the club to then sell STs to keep us going? Seems to me, like some fans he put his own personal feelings against Lowe and Wilde ahead of the love the club at that time?[/quote'] The cost of running the club before and after admin were probably astronomically different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 As I understand it it is a legal requirement of the PLC board to call in the administrators the moment the company can not honor its payment s to creditors (in this case triggered by Barclays bouncing cheques) as soon as this happened the board had no choice... Technically correct but who sent out the cheques knowing they would take us over an agreed limit ? if the cheques had not been sent would we have been in admin because we had 2 games with decent gates after that happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 The cost of running the club before and after admin were probably astronomically different. Uhm maybe because we could not shift high earners over January TW, but had we been able to keep going until the summer, the knowledge of relegation helps get rid of thsoe splitters anyway and teh income from thsoe sales would have cleared the OD and ST income build some much needed cash reserves allowing the continued restructuring to occur while solvent.... just a thought really... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 But would it not have been wiser for Leon to dip in before' date=' to avoid admin and at least maintain some sort of sharevalue and allow the club to then sell STs to keep us going? Seems to me, like some fans he put his own personal feelings against Lowe and Wilde ahead of the love the club at that time?[/quote'] i am sure he would have done if Rupert and Michael had walked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 Technically correct but who sent out the cheques knowing they would take us over an agreed limit ? if the cheques had not been sent would we have been in admin because we had 2 games with decent gates after that happened I suspect the board probably felt these would be honored as within the OD terms - but as with all overdrafts the terms mean diddly squat due to that sentance about recall/reduction at any time the baks feel like doing so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 i am sure he would have done if Rupert and Michael had walked Which is exactly the point - his hatred ill feeling for them ahead of using his abilty to save the club - i am not saying he should have done or he was obliged to, but the difference it would have mad had he been so generous earlier is pretty clear - nose to spite face stuff which you simply cant make up.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 Which is exactly the point - his hatred ill feeling for them ahead of using his abilty to save the club - i am not saying he should have done or he was obliged to' date=' but the difference it would have mad had he been so generous earlier is pretty clear - nose to spite face stuff which you simply cant make up....[/quote'] by ALL parties Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 I suspect the board probably felt these would be honored as within the OD terms - but as with all overdrafts the terms mean diddly squat due to that sentance about recall/reduction at any time the baks feel like doing so... but were they within the overdraft limit? one day the truth will come out i hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 but were they within the overdraft limit? one day the truth will come out i hope Thought that was the whole point. We exceeded our agreed overdraft limit and hence Barclays did the necessary. In other words Lowe and Wilde had increased our debt beyond that which they had agreed with Barclays Bank. Quite clear who is responsible for that, and of course none of Lowe, Wilde or their cronies put any money in to help. Yet somehow Crouch gets the blame (sorry not getting at you Mike). You couldn't make up some of the twaddle that gets written on here by some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 Thought that was the whole point. We exceeded our agreed overdraft limit and hence Barclays did the necessary. In other words Lowe and Wilde had increased our debt beyond that which they had agreed with Barclays Bank. Quite clear who is responsible for that, and of course none of Lowe, Wilde or their cronies put any money in to help. Yet somehow Crouch gets the blame (sorry not getting at you Mike). You couldn't make up some of the twaddle that gets written on here by some. Its not 'blaming' Crouch. he was quite RIGHTLY under NO obligation to help, especially as none of the others did... no one is saying he SHOULD have done. But given his SUBSEQUENT cash injection it seems that our current situation COULD have been avoided had he decided to due the unilateral bit (as he has done anyway) earlier. That is simply a truth. The fact he timed it later suggests he was unwilling to do so whilst LOwe/Wilde were there... and is that not surely the nose/spit face thing I referred to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 by ALL parties True, Lowe and Wilde if they had teh ability cash flow wise should have done everything they could - even if only as Loan notes to get us to Seasons end which was what they indicated would happen in the financial statement - 'look towards current directors and shareholders for additional funds to maintain the club as a going concern' - It can only be assumed there were no takers when asked including Low, Wilde and CRouch - which then leads to the question why Crouch then did exactly that only weeks after admin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 Its not 'blaming' Crouch. he was quite RIGHTLY under NO obligation to help' date=' especially as none of the others did... no one is saying he SHOULD have done. But given his SUBSEQUENT cash injection it seems that our current situation COULD have been avoided had he decided to due the unilateral bit (as he has done anyway) earlier. That is simply a truth. The fact he timed it later suggests he was unwilling to do so whilst LOwe/Wilde were there... and is that not surely the nose/spit face thing I referred to?[/quote'] Surely the salient point is this. If he'd put that money in before administration, that money would have formed part of the company's balance / cash in hand. It might have staved off administration for a week or two but nothing more. By putting the money in after administration, he could be more sure that the money was used for the benefit of the club / staff wages than to honour cheques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 Surely the salient point is this. If he'd put that money in before administration, that money would have formed part of the company's balance / cash in hand. It might have staved off administration for a week or two but nothing more. By putting the money in after administration, he could be more sure that the money was used for the benefit of the club / staff wages than to honour cheques. NOt sure there is any difference - we now run the very big risk of going out of business - had we survived until the transfer window opened and players could be sold even at drop down prices + ST revenues we could have continued to restructure for L1 and hopefully survived- a few more weeks was all that was needed.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreog Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 would have made sod all difference to the losers that call themselves players.........it had to happen sooner or later due to their appalling displays !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 NOt sure there is any difference - we now run the very big risk of going out of business - had we survived until the transfer window opened and players could be sold even at drop down prices + ST revenues we could have continued to restructure for L1 and hopefully survived- a few more weeks was all that was needed.... Well then, perhaps Wilde and Lowe should have matched his offer after all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 would have made sod all difference to the losers that call themselves players.........it had to happen sooner or later due to their appalling displays !! True, but if we could have shipped out all those not committed to L1 - and with relegation those top earners would ahve wanted to go anyway, + ST sales I think it could have been different , not worth it evebn for the smallest chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 28 May, 2009 Share Posted 28 May, 2009 Well then, perhaps Wilde and Lowe should have matched his offer after all Sue they should ...if they could.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now